The FBI’s UCR Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of more than 18,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. Since 1930, the FBI has administered the UCR Program and has continued to assess and monitor the nature and type of crime in the nation. The program’s primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management; over the years, however, the data have become one of the country’s leading social indicators. Criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, and other students of criminal justice use the data for varied research and planning purposes.

So it's a little hard to see how the FBI might have missed this. Looking in the actual UCR reveals the answer:

The report quite specifically notes the 27 victims (26 at the school, plus Lanza's mother), but excludes them from the statistics for Newton. Instead they are included in "State Police Misc", because the crimes at the school fell under the jurisdiction of the state police, not the local police.

So it seems that as they are not assigned to a specific town, they do not appear in the FBI table. The UCR is primarily a statistical tool and does not have 100% coverage. The 27 deaths are included in the state total of 144 on the FBI web page, just not in the local totals, which only includes 110 for the 92 listed communities.

The CT UCR also explicitly includes the victims in the state totals, (page 11)

And on page 12:

And on pages 14 and 25, in fact the Newtown murders are mentioned 14 times in the Connecticut UCR.

I've run into the YT poster before - he's as far down the rabbit hole as you can be and this is a classic example - showing how the FBI says there were killings at Sandy Hook while claiming they do not is classic cognitive dissonance.

Sure...and I have numerous friends who constantly say--for political reasons--that theNew York Times is not to be trusted...but of course, any time something in the Timesdoes support their position, well, then the paper is instantly reputable again. Temporarily.

I've run into the YT poster before - he's as far down the rabbit hole as you can be and this is a classic example - showing how the FBI says there were killings at Sandy Hook while claiming they do not is classic cognitive dissonance.

Click to expand...

I had a similar experience just days ago in court when I cross-examined a so-called 'expert' witness who deliberately submitted a report to the court that was clearly the opposite of what she was told by a victim/witness. Her attempts, under oath and under my cross-examination when confronted with the evidence, to twist the fact was quite pathetic to watch. Suffice to say I reduced her to a quivering wreck when she realised that the poor victim had not only taken notes at the assessment but also took electronic digital record, transcript of which was provided to the court. I was given news the next day at court that this so-called 'expert' has voluntarily resigned! If a court appointed expert upon whose evidence/opinion is heavily relied by judges to decide cases can twist facts, lie and put the lives of vulnerable victims at risk, with such impunity, what can we expect from the likes of this YT poster who aren't in a position of authority or trust?

Sure...and I have numerous friends who constantly say--for political reasons--that theNew York Times is not to be trusted...but of course, any time something in the Timesdoes support their position, well, then the paper is instantly reputable again. Temporarily.

Click to expand...

I come across this a lot, sadly, in my line of work and it never ceases to amaze and/or amuse! I think lack of integrity drives that kind of attitude, and it clearly reveals where the credibility lies .

Some conspiracy theorists are still speculating that it seems fishy, etc. The report doesn't list why (I think it's just human error and oversight, I've been looking at some UCR from other states and they are even less comprehensive) but taking a look at the federal UCR for new york in 2001 there is precedent for not including something that would be a statistical outlier:

• The murder count of September 11 is
so high that combining it with the traditional
crime statistics will have an outlier effect that
skews all types of measurements in the
Program’s analysis. (An outlier is any extreme
value, either large or small, that substantially
deviates from the rest of the distribution.)

Content from external source

The differences are reflected in the footnotes there too (table 6 and 8)

It's not human error. The data used in the table is from city and town law enforcement agencies. Since Connecticut State Police were heading the investigation, that means it's a state law enforcement agency and not city or town. Snopes has debunked this as well. http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

It's not human error. The data used in the table is from city and town law enforcement agencies. Since Connecticut State Police were heading the investigation, that means it's a state law enforcement agency and not city or town. Snopes has debunked this as well. http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

Click to expand...

I was just curious as to why the FBI UCR wouldn't note that with a footnote. Maybe I'm speculating too much.

Sandy Hook Elementary School and Residence
On December 14, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., Adam Lanza, 20, armed with two handguns and a rifle,
shot through the secured front door to enter Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
Connecticut. He killed 20 students and six adults, and wounded two adults inside the school.
Prior to the shooting, the shooter killed his mother at their home. In total, 27 people were
killed; two were wounded. The shooter committed suicide after police arrived.

Transparency Joe.. people have been demanding stats on violence in the US for decades.. so the FBI posts the data there for anyone to view if they want it. Its never a "waste of taxpayer money" when the stats can be used by groups to push for the deregulation of gun control, or to "prove" that having a gun prevents crime etc. The other sides use the information as well to show the opposite. The FBI puts it out there because the information is wanted.

Its not transparent if its wrong . Makes it a lie and fuels conspiracies .

Click to expand...

Mike and De said exactly what I was going to say Joe.. Occam's Razor, what's more likely.. that the US Government is going to intentionally publish false stats that ANYONE can see, just so that people can figure out they're lying.. or that people dont know how to read what's out there, or cant see beyond their own preconceived ideas what the numbers mean?

Personally, Im going with the latter. Not because I automatically take what the Govt says is true, but because IF you believe the ppl that say the Government is using False Flags to remove the right to bear arms, then the fact that the shooting "doesnt show up" COMPLETELY contradicts that agenda. So you tell me which makes more sense to you.

Mike and De said exactly what I was going to say Joe.. Occam's Razor, what's more likely.. that the US Government is going to intentionally publish false stats that ANYONE can see, just so that people can figure out they're lying.. or that people dont know how to read what's out there, or cant see beyond their own preconceived ideas what the numbers mean?

Personally, Im going with the latter. Not because I automatically take what the Govt says is true, but because IF you believe the ppl that say the Government is using False Flags to remove the right to bear arms, then the fact that the shooting "doesnt show up" COMPLETELY contradicts that agenda. So you tell me which makes more sense to you.

Click to expand...

Well I don't believe in False Flags . But I know ""You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. " seems to be popular these days .

Although I don't think there's anything going on with these figures along those lines. It all seems quite straightforward. Of course individual politicians will spin events to suit their own preferences.

the weird part is actually how many towns aren't listed. most of them have resident state troopers, but Redding has a resident state trooper and Redding is listed. most resident trooper towns are not listed on that particular fbi page.

Southbury, on ct.gov, says its served by resident troopers...I know this is true of the Southbury Training School property- a state owned 'school' for handicapped people.- but Southbury has many cars driving around (that are not the grey state trooper cars) that are black and say "southbury police"...so I don't know why Southbury isn't listed.

the weird part is actually how many towns aren't listed. most of them have resident state troopers, but Redding has a resident state trooper and Redding is listed. most resident trooper towns are not listed on that particular fbi page.

Southbury, on ct.gov, says its served by resident troopers...I know this is true of the Southbury Training School property- a state owned 'school' for handicapped people.- but Southbury has many cars driving around (that are not the grey state trooper cars) that are black and say "southbury police"...so I don't know why Southbury isn't listed.

But it's not listed as having any police officers in the CT UCR, even though it quite clearly does. So either they are still classified as state troopers, or they don't meet some specific definition of a police department.

Approximately 40 of these communities are patrolled solely by State Troopers. The other communities have engaged in a cost-sharing contract agreement with the CSP known as a "Resident Trooper" which provides a trooper assigned to the community on a full-time basis. The title dates to a time when the Resident Trooper was an actual resident of the town, and had an office and official telephone located at his personal residence. Resident Troopers have for many decades not been required to be residents of the community they are assigned to, and offices have been moved to space provided by the host community. Costs, which include salary, equipment, and cruiser, are split between the town (70%) and state (30%). In towns that have a Resident Trooper program, the State Police will supervise and dispatch local constables with police powers (if any). Some towns with large Resident Trooper and constable programs will include State Police Sergeants in the Resident Trooper program to provide an appropriate level of supervision to full-time constable forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_State_Police

That's not uncommon in rural areas. Even here in NJ the state police are involved with certain towns and counties. Usually though, there jurisdiction resides to state and county roads. Which in turn helps the local police to be able to govern their communities more closely and share in the cost. However, if the state police arrest someone they will usually hand them off to the local authorities.

Deirdre, you want to see confusing, come visit me. We have city police, county sheriffs, state police officers (called DPS), and constables (who basically serve liens, orders of protection, etc, but are trained peace officers) . All have authority in town if they actually observe a crime being committed. Of course the first 2 are the primary LE, but though our city is within the county, only Police respond or patrol inside the limits, unless it's a major event. If it is major such as a bank robbery or HSP, all 3 will respond if available.

That's not uncommon in rural areas. Even here in NJ the state police are involved with certain towns and counties. Usually though, there jurisdiction resides to state and county roads. Which in turn helps the local police to be able to govern their communities more closely and share in the cost. However, if the state police arrest someone they will usually hand them off to the local authorities.

Click to expand...

yea. I don't begrudge rural areas as they have no chance at taxes from industry etc. but Southbury is not rural, right on a main highway, lots of commerce, decent income levels . Maybe has some deal due to the State police barracks in town (?)... who knows.

yea. I don't begrudge rural areas as they have no chance at taxes from industry etc. but Southbury is not rural, right on a main highway, lots of commerce, decent income levels . Maybe has some deal due to the State police barracks in town (?)... who knows.

Click to expand...

Probably, I live in a wealthy area but we share some of the roads with State police, and I found this out because every time there is construction in town, if it's on Route 72 you will see state police monitoring the site as opposed to stafford twp police. Thats how I found out, but it's common practice all across the US. I don't know Southbury as well as you do, but I'm just offering my 2cents..

Well. It seems I missed something and I can't find it. The FBI state table total says 146. The CT UCR says 143. I've been to both sites but can't account for 3. Help appreciated.

Click to expand...

its a bit off topic, as 3 wouldnt apply to an issue with Sandy Hook reported murders (as that has already been shown to be in the FBI statistics). The Conn UCR also says 34 under State police jurisdiction, but the fbi one says 36...i'm wondering if info was updated ? after Connecticut filed the UCR (august 2013)...or vice versa. Do we know when the fbi statistics were correlated?

its a bit off topic, as 3 wouldnt apply to an issue with Sandy Hook reported murders (as that has already been shown to be in the FBI statistics). The Conn UCR also says 34 under State police jurisdiction, but the fbi one says 36...i'm wondering if info was updated ? after Connecticut filed the UCR (august 2013)...or vice versa. Do we know when the fbi statistics were correlated?